X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 08:13:17 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [205.186.160.203] (HELO server.rmcginc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTPS id 5032542 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 17:18:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.186.160.203; envelope-from=r.rickard@rcginc-us.com Received: (qmail 26070 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2011 14:17:31 -0700 Received: from 24-107-105-58.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com (HELO ?192.168.1.74?) (24.107.105.58) by rmcomserver.com with SMTP; 25 Jun 2011 14:17:30 -0700 References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8J3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-16968988 X-Original-Message-Id: X-Original-Cc: "lml@lancaironline.net" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8J3) From: Bob Rickard Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L... X-Original-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:17:29 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List --Apple-Mail-1-16968988 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Pile on to the fighter comment: =20 I flew F16s for 18 years and now fly the F-22. Both of those planes are eas= ier to land than my IV-P. I have flown a lot of slow speed stuff in those p= lanes, and I don't Intend to explore the stall characteristics of my plane, e= ver. If you are learning to fly, then yes, do so in a plane than can stall a= nd was designed for it. Do all of that, get 1000 hours, and THEN get a IV-P= , and quality training on how to fly it. Personally I get weary of the repe= ated " You need to see how it stalls if it ever happens" attitude. If you s= tay ahead of the airplane and don't take it where it doesn't need to be, you= will never be there. It's never going to happen in this plane unless it's u= nintentional, and unless you are 10,000' up you are going to hit the ground a= nd it isn't going to be pretty- period! The IV-P was designed to fly fast a= nd efficient over long distance. Not to do acrobatics, stalls, anything els= e. It doesn't need to be fixed, it does exactly what it was intended to do= ! And pilots who wanna fix the IV-P or stall it should fly something else (= in my opinion). =20 Bob R On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM, John Hafen wrote: > One has to choose between stall strips and a heated leading edge. >=20 > For me personally, stall strips would be more applicable for my Cub, which= doesn't need them at all. And I have been in inadvertent icing conditions i= n the IVP and watched the ice curl up like potato chips and blow away. I'll= keep the heated leading edge, thank you, rather than a stall strip that I w= ould never use. >=20 > And as far as a larger tail??? > A. Who is going to spend the additional money to make their IVP look st= upid? > B. The IVP is tail heavy already -- no one wants to load extra weight a= ft of the CG. > C. Challenged pilots should perhaps fly a different plane. >=20 > I love the IVP the way it is. I have never crashed and died. I understan= d the envelope, and like it;) >=20 > John >=20 > (On military pilots and "training" to fly unstable air craft -- I don't th= ink you are accurate on this one. The F-16 is so unstable that it requires 2= 0+ inputs per second to maintain straight and level flight. It is computeri= zed. No human being on earth, no matter how highly trained, can manually fl= y an F-16 straight and level. The "fly by wire" F-16 is way easier to fly t= han my IVP. The original side stick didn't move at all, but responded to pr= essure. Pilots hated it so it was redesigned to move slightly. And the pil= ots wishes to go a computer that controls the flight surfaces. There is no d= irect manual connection from the stick to the flight control surfaces. Even= in the old F4, the flight control "feel" was artificial -- based on springs= , as the hydraulic system supplied 3,000 psi to the flight control surfaces,= which came in really handy over about mach 1.1. You don't need a million d= ollars worth of training to fly a IVP safely. HPAT, yes.) >=20 > On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Wolfgang wrote: >=20 > Military aircraft are unstable to allow better agility. > Military pilots get over a million dollars worth of training each to be ab= le to handle their "unstable" aircraft. > =20 > I don't see that happening for IVP drivers. > =20 > There are a couple of things that can be done that don't adversely affect p= erformance or handling. > Stall strips and larger tail feathers come to mind. > =20 > Wolfgang > =20 > From: John Hafen > Sender: > Subject: Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vor= tex Generators for L... > Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:05:59 -0400 > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Wolfgang states: "If the airframe can't get back in the envelope, then th= e airframe needs to be fixed." >=20 > There are lots of historical examples to the contrary, like the F4 Phantom= . Once in a flat spin, the plane was unrecoverable from any altitude. "Sti= ck Forward, Ailerons and Rudder Neutral, If not Recovered, Maintain Full For= ward Stick and Deploy Drag Shoot" were not enough. =20 >=20 > Yet the F4 was the work horse fighter for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, an= d hosts of allies for decades. And it was fast, over Mach II. >=20 > Yet, you stayed far far away from "departing" -- high angle of attack, sti= ck one way and the rudder the other..... >=20 > Most advanced stalls in IVP are recoverable, given 10,000 feet or so. >=20 > But unlike the F4, most of our IVPs are not equipped with Martin-Baker eje= ction seats. >=20 > The F4 never got fixed. The IVP got "fixed." It's called the "ES," with l= arger differently shaped wings and fixed gear, that became the Columbia/Cess= na. >=20 > The "fix" was a series of tradeoffs that IMHO made it a less desirable pla= ne -- slower, fixed gear, non-pressurized. >=20 > I'll happily keep the un-fixed version of the IVP myself, thank you. =20 >=20 > John Hafen >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Wolfgang wrote: >=20 > I, for one, want to be able to recover from an "adverse" condition should I= ever find myself in one. > Knowing where the edges of the envelope are and how to get beck in the env= elope should be required. > If the airframe can't get back in the envelope, then the airframe needs to= be fixed. > =20 > Wolfgang > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Karen Farnsworth > To: lml@lancaironline.net > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:12 PM > Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L..= . >=20 > David, >=20 >=20 > I have no problem with anyone who wants to explore the =E2=80=9Cenvelope=E2= =80=9D of his/her airplane. However, I take great exception to you grounding= me because I might choose to not get as near to the edge as you. >=20 >=20 > Lynn Farnsworth >=20 > Super Legacy #235 >=20 > TSIO-550 Powered >=20 > Reno Race #44 >=20 > Mmo .6 >=20 >=20 > I agree 100% also. >=20 > If you don=E2=80=99t know what the incipient stall feels like in the stick= and the airframe you should not be flying the Legacy or 320=E2=80=99s.=20 >=20 > (Not knowing this is the single biggest killer of Lancair pilots.) >=20 >=20 > David T. >=20 > Legacy >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-1-16968988 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Pile on to the fighter comment:  &= nbsp;

I flew F16s for 18 years and now fly the F-22= .  Both of those planes are easier to land than my IV-P.  I have f= lown a lot of slow speed stuff in those planes, and I don't Intend to explor= e the stall characteristics of my plane, ever.  If you are learning to f= ly, then yes, do so in a plane than can stall and was designed for it.  = ;Do all of that, get 1000 hours, and THEN get a IV-P, and quality training o= n how to fly it.  Personally I get weary of the repeated " You need to s= ee how it stalls if it ever happens" attitude.  If you stay ahead of th= e airplane and don't take it where it doesn't need to be, you will never be t= here.  It's never going to happen in this plane unless it's unintention= al, and unless you are 10,000' up you are going to hit the ground and it isn= 't going to be pretty- period!  The IV-P was designed to fly fast and e= fficient over long distance.  Not to do acrobatics, stalls, anything el= se.  It doesn't need to be fixed, it does exactly what it was intended &= nbsp;to do!  And pilots who wanna fix the IV-P or stall it should fly s= omething else ( in my opinion).  

Bob R


On Jun 24, 2011, at 10:02 PM, John Hafen <j.hafen@comcast.net> wrote:

=
One has to choose between stall st= rips and a heated leading edge.

For me personally, stall s= trips would be more applicable for my Cub, which doesn't need them at all. &= nbsp;And I have been in inadvertent icing conditions in the IVP and watched t= he ice curl up like potato chips and blow away.  I'll keep the heated l= eading edge, thank you, rather than a stall strip that I would never use.

And as far as a larger tail???
  = A.  Who is going to spend the additional money to make their IVP look s= tupid?
  B.  The IVP is tail heavy already -- no on= e wants to load extra weight aft of the CG.
  C.  C= hallenged pilots should perhaps fly a different plane.

<= div>I love the IVP the way it is.  I have never crashed and died.  = ;I understand the envelope, and like it;)

John

(On military pilots and "training" to fly unstable air c= raft -- I don't think you are accurate on this one.  The F-16 is so uns= table that it requires 20+ inputs per second to maintain straight and level f= light.  It is computerized.  No human being on earth, no matter ho= w highly trained, can manually fly an F-16 straight and level.  The "fl= y by wire" F-16 is way easier to fly than my IVP.  The original side st= ick didn't move at all, but responded to pressure.  Pilots hated it so i= t was redesigned to move slightly.  And the pilots wishes to go a compu= ter that controls the flight surfaces.  There is no direct manual conne= ction from the stick to the flight control surfaces.  Even in the old F4= , the flight control "feel" was artificial -- based on springs, as the hydra= ulic system supplied 3,000 psi to the flight control surfaces, which came in= really handy over about mach 1.1.  You don't need a million dollars wo= rth of training to fly a IVP safely.  HPAT, yes.)

On Jun 24, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Wolfgang wrote:

Military aircraft ar= e unstable to allow better agility.
Military pilots get over a million dollars worth of training each to= be able to handle their "unstable" aircraft.
 
I= don't see that happening for IVP drivers.
 
There are a couple of things that can be do= ne that don't adversely affect performance or handling.
Stall strips and larger tail feathers come to m= ind.
&n= bsp;
Wolfgang
 
=
From:John H= afen <j.hafen@comcast.net>
Sender:<marv@lancaironlin= e.net>
Subject:Airplane needs to be "fixed," Stall Speeds, Wing Cuff= s, Vortex Generators for L...
Date:<= /td>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 06:05:59 -0400
To:lml@la= ncaironline.net
<= /td>
Wolfgang states:  "If the airframe can't get back in the envelope, then the airfr= ame needs to be fixed."

There are lots of historical examples to the c= ontrary, like the F4 Phantom.  Once in a flat spin, the plane was unrec= overable from any altitude.  "Stick Forward, Ailerons and Rudder Neutra= l, If not Recovered, Maintain Full Forward Stick and Deploy Drag Shoot" were= not enough.  

= Yet the F4 was the work horse fighter for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and h= osts of allies for decades.  And it was fast, over Mach II.

Ye= t, you stayed far far away from "departing" -- high angle of attack, stick o= ne way and the rudder the other.....

Most advanced stalls in IVP ar= e recoverable, given 10,000 feet or so.

But unlike the F4, most of ou= r IVPs are not equipped with Martin-Baker ejection seats.

The F4 ne= ver got fixed.  The IVP got "fixed."  It's called the "ES," with l= arger differently shaped wings and fixed gear, that became the Columbia/Cess= na.

The "fix" was a series of tradeoffs that IMHO made it a less de= sirable plane -- slower, fixed gear, non-pressurized.

I'll happily k= eep the un-fixed version of the IVP myself, thank you.  <= /div>

John H= afen




On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:11 AM, Wolfgang wr= ote:

I, for one, want to be able to= recover from an "adverse" condition should I ever find myself in one.
Knowing where the edges of the e= nvelope are and how to get beck in the envelope should be required.
If the airframe can't get back in t= he envelope, then the airframe needs to be fixed.
 
Wolfgang
----- Original Message -= ----
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:12 PM
Subject: RE= : [LML] Re: Stall Speeds, Wing Cuffs, Vortex Generators for L...
<= br>

David,

I have no problem with anyone who wants to explore t= he =E2=80=9Cenvelope=E2=80=9D of his/her airplane. However, I take great exc= eption to you grounding me because I might choose to not get as near to the e= dge as you.

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal">L= ynn Farnsworth

Super Legacy #235

TSIO-550 Powered

Reno Race #44

=

= Mmo .6

I= agree 100% also.

If you don=E2=80=99t k= now what the incipient stall feels like in the stick and the airframe you sh= ould not be flying the Legacy or 320=E2=80=99s. 

(Not knowing this is the single biggest killer of Lancair pilo= ts.)

David T.

Legacy


= --Apple-Mail-1-16968988--